Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection 8

Yes, they say the flesh is sinful, and so it forces the soul to sin along with it; they accuse the flesh in vain, heaping the sins of both onto it alone. For how could the flesh sin by itself if it did not have the soul leading and urging it on? It is like a yoke of oxen unloosed from each other: neither can plow alone. In the same way, once soul and body are loosed from their union, neither can do anything by itself. But if the flesh alone is sinful, then the Savior came for its sake, just as he said: "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13). Since the flesh has been shown to be precious and glorious to God beyond all his works, it will rightly be saved by him. We must answer those who claim that, even if the flesh is the noblest of God's works and precious to him, it does not therefore possess the promise of resurrection. How is it not absurd that, after such great deliberation and being honored above all else, the Creator would abandon it to non-existence? A craftsman or painter who wants their works to endure so they may be glorified through them will restore them when they decay; would God then abandon his own possession and creation as if it were nothing, letting it cease to be? We call that futile labor, like someone who builds a house only to tear it down, or ignores a ruined house when able to rebuild it; we would not accuse a human of doing such a thing in vain, so how much less God? But the incorruptible, all-encompassing Mind is not like this. Let the unbelievers praise such a notion, if that is what their unbelief leads them to! In fact, he has called the flesh to resurrection and promises it eternal life. For where he proclaims the gospel to save the human being, he proclaims it to the flesh as well. What is a human being, if not a rational living creature composed of soul and body? Is the soul by itself a human being? No, it is the soul of a human being. Is the body by itself called a human being? No, it is called the body of a human being. Since neither is a human being on its own, but the human being is the combination of both, and since God has called the human being to life and resurrection, he has called not a part but the whole, which is soul and body together. When both exist together in the same reality, how is it not absurd to save one and not the other? Since it has been demonstrated that the flesh can experience rebirth, what distinction justifies saving the soul but not the flesh? Are they making God out to be envious? But God is good and desires all to be saved. Indeed, both our soul and our flesh have heard his gospel and believed in Christ Jesus; both have been washed, and both have worked righteousness. Do they therefore portray God as ungrateful or unjust, if he wills to save one of two believers but not the other? They answer: yes, but the soul is incorruptible, being a part of God and his breath, and so he wished to save what is his own and akin to him; the flesh, however, is corruptible and not from him as the soul is. What grace is there in that? And what display of his power and goodness, if he only saves what is naturally saved and is already a part of him? The soul possessed salvation from him by its very nature, since it is his part, his breath; saving the soul is no great thing, for salvation is inherent to it precisely because it is his part. But there is no grace in saving what is one's own; that is simply saving oneself. The one who saves his own part through himself saves himself, lest that part ever be in need. That is not the mark of the good. No one calls a person good merely for showing favor to their children and descendants; even the wildest beasts do that, and they would even die for their offspring. But if someone shows the same favor to their slaves, they would rightly be called good. For this reason the Savior also taught us to love our enemies, since he asked: "What credit is that to you?" He showed us that a good work consists not in loving only those who come from us, but also those outside. And what he commanded us to do, he himself did long before.